From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or_module" from rx51-peripherals
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 22:55:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160723055524.GA28140@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160722140242.GC11410@windriver.com>
* Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> [160722 07:02]:
> [Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or_module" from rx51-peripherals] On 21/07/2016 (Thu 23:41) Tony Lindgren wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > * Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> [160719 21:17]:
> > > During unrelated work, attempting to remove an include of the
> > > linux/module.h in favour of "struct module;" in order to reduce
> > > header entanglement, we found doing so caused a build failure in
> > > this file.
> >
> > We're planning to drop this file after v4.8-rc1 after I've
> > verified that legacy booting still works at v4.8-rc1.
> >
> > Are you OK if I pick this patch into my omap-for-v4.8/legacy
> > branch? Or if you have a minimal immutable branch against v4.7-rc1
> > with just this patch I can merge it in no problem.
>
> Is the legacy branch a contingency plan for the case where legacy
> booting doesn't work? If so, that should be OK.
Well it's just a branch of omap legacy booting related patches
for v4.8. But looking at it now, looks like I already pushed out the
removal of the last two remaining board files before I took few weeks
off. But I did not add it to Linux next to keep things working
until -rc1.
> Having the patch present, or having the file deleted both take care of
> my concern -- which was was introducing build regressions when adding
> the gpio header cleanup into for-4.9 content.
OK. As I've already pushed out the board-*.c removal branch, I
suggest we just drop the $subject patch to avoid a merge conflict.
Regards,
Tony
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-23 5:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-20 4:13 [PATCH 0/3] ARM: fix three implicit module use cases fed via gpio Paul Gortmaker
2016-07-20 4:13 ` [PATCH 1/3] ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or_module" from rx51-peripherals Paul Gortmaker
2016-07-22 6:41 ` Tony Lindgren
2016-07-22 14:02 ` Paul Gortmaker
2016-07-23 5:55 ` Tony Lindgren [this message]
2016-07-23 14:14 ` Paul Gortmaker
2016-07-20 4:13 ` [PATCH 2/3] ARM: pxa: add module.h for corgi symbol_get/symbol_put usage Paul Gortmaker
2016-07-20 4:13 ` [PATCH 3/3] ARM: pxa: add module.h for spitz " Paul Gortmaker
2016-07-22 15:29 ` [PATCH 0/3] ARM: fix three implicit module use cases fed via gpio Linus Walleij
2016-07-23 8:09 ` Robert Jarzmik
2016-07-23 14:10 ` Paul Gortmaker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160723055524.GA28140@atomide.com \
--to=tony@atomide.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).